UESPWiki:Archive/CP Unacceptable Usernames

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Unacceptable Usernames

We need to make a clear cut line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for usernames. Do we allow curse words in usernames? Do we allow slanderous words? Words that have bad connotations? We need to remember that we have young teenagers on this site. I know there is nudity with Daggerfall and whatnot, but we need to make a rating for the site. If the IRC is PG, should that be the same for the entire site? I am essentially okay with either direction, but we need a direction. –Elliot ^talk 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I fear this may turn into a great philosophical debate over what words and phrases are acceptable and what isn't. Let me start with adding that some people can be offended by the slightest whisper. For example, while I was moderator of a specific message board, I once received a reported post in my email inbox. The reporter complained about someone's signature, as it said "Hey baby, wanna kill all humans with me?" (for the oblivious, that's a reference to Futurama's Bender). The reporter read it too literally.

I've always been bothered a bit by the, in my opinion, strong language control here (both wiki and IRC). If someone feels he need to utter a couple of swear words, that is fine with me. All it can do for me is that I take the editor less seriously. There's a limit for me, ofcourse, swearing every other word will annoy me as it makes your comments harder to read.

I also know that other people are bothered sooner than me, and we need to have a place everyone can feel comfortable.

One thing I disagree with, is a rating for the site. Ratings are usually bad attempts to categorise the world in green wide meadows and mutilated (naked) limbs flying around. It isn't the precise words we wish to filter, but the intent behind them. See for example the fictional (and exaggerated) usernames "LoveThisFuckingGame" and "IHateFuckingBugs". The first is just from an overly enthousiastic user, the second is one from a user bringing along negative feelings. My point is, we should address these on a case-by-case basis, not simply filter on a variety of words.

Are there usernames we should ban on sight? Yes, usernames that are prohibited by law (e.g. racism), harass other people, spam or just plain nonsense. The rest we should just judge on a case-by-case basis, and not necessarily attract undeserved attention to them. Cursing is often a way to draw attention, and mostly ignoring them can be most effective. --Timenn-<talk> 14:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another important consideration is "Don't Feed The Troll". The original post was triggered by one particular new user's name. My advice was to ignore it because it had the look of the sort of person who would make one or two posts and then never come back again, which, so far, has been the case. Asking a user to pick a new name or unilaterally renaming them is far more likely to end up posting the offending name over multiple pages, spreading exactly what was originally intended to be contained. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't have some vague shadow of a policy that insists we take it case-by-case (this topic is extremely subjective). Adding rules to it would slam the door shut and have the ease of acting on what has been established. If an editor really wants to edit here, then they won't mind what their username is (at least in these terms they shouldn't). If they gripe, we can kindly point them to policy. Or, we could just add it to the blacklist, stopping them before they start yammering on about rights. If there are multiple bars of "resistance" to wording, then we need to side with one of the lower bars, not one of the higher ones. I am not really against cursing in a reply, but having to see it over and over again in a username is more than I would want to see. Also, we can't use a prediction of activity to base our decisions upon something, since like you enjoy saying, we aren't clairvoyants. And your "Don't Feed the Troll" idea is rather bothersome. That is like not punishing your kid just because you know they will act out. Also, it implies that they are a troll (which is assuming bad faith). We could just say to them that their username is not appropriate for the site. Sites have rules all the time, and to be a member, you have to follow them. So asking them to abide by rules is no stretch of a task. –Elliot ^talk 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a policy that insists we take it case-by-case is the best. Take a look at the latest example. It's not what I would consider an appropriate username, but they seem like a genuine user so far. I personally don't care about anyone's username. I suppose others are more likely to take offence, but I consider that their fault. That's why I don't really feel the need for a strong policy, but there are of course usernames that should be banned on sight. Like Timenn said, it's not the username itself, but the intention. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond subjective to take it case-by-case. It could potentially spur wheel-wars or something worse. Having some vague idea of what should be done is typically what spurs the largest conflicts on the wiki. No one should have curse words in their username. Plain and simple. –Elliot ^talk 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Don't Feed The Troll" is a standard Internet way of dealing with this. You're making mountains out of... not even molehills; out of something that doesn't even exist. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

/=> If I have a problem with people's usernames, then it is a problem. Don't undermine my opinion because you disagree. There is absolutely not reason someone should have "fuck", "bitch", "ass", or any other possibly offensive word. –Elliot ^talk 22:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you have no problem using those words on a "Community Portal" while trying to protect the "Community". Neither do I see how mentioning an Internet phrase so common that not only does Wikipedia have an article on it, it also has redirects from 47 related phrases is undermining your opinion. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather bothered by the thought of becoming a "nanny" site. While it seems to you that this is a "plain and simple" topic, it gets complicated. What exactly is considered a curse word? As we've learned before, "crap", which is such a mild word in the US that it's common to hear small children utter it, is considered a fairly-obscene word in the UK. We're different than most websites in that we rely quite often on judgment calls from administrators, and it seems to work incredibly well. I don't see why we can't simply trust our admins to decide on a case-by-case basis what's appropriate or not. --GK^Talk2me 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GK there. So far we haven't had big issues with usernames, and usually the duty of an administrator covered it. --Timenn-<talk> 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)